Pax
Democratica
(Draft - April 1,
2003)
"From top to bottom, Americans do believe
democracy is good for everyone, even if some may have to wait for it
longer than others. But here comes the crux of the American dilemma.
Even if we're prepared to grant the existence, deep in American
purposes, of more idealism than is usually admitted, its fulfilment
has become unattainable."
"... What Iraqis see, and the world along with
them, is a hegemon going about its business of domination, and barely
any longer interested in why it is hated for doing so. Its motives, to
put them no lower, are compromised."
"It is inconceivable that Bush would make a
speech disclaiming the merits of a Pax
Americana."
" But at least
Blair's motives are not compromised. ... He's an internationalist
visionary, albeit a naive one."
The article, "Blair has one final chance to break
free of his tainted fealty," by Hugo Young (The
Guardian, April 1, 2003)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,927061,00.html)
from which these quotations are taken, is of a type becoming
increasingly common in recent days. It reflects the growing concern
about a world in which the US enjoys hegemony and will practice it in
such a way as to result in an imperial role for itself, seeking a Pax
Americana. At the same time the UN is struggling with its future role.
A possible response to such a situation follows.
The current situation
It is easy to read into the short-term power
agendas of any particular US administration a long-term trend that may
not develop. It is important to be skeptical about the present US
administration but not be blinded by cynicism. By and large, with many
mistakes and much to be corrected and developed, the American
experiment, now more than two hundred years in the making, has
contributed substantially to world civilization. It would be foolish
indeed to throw the US out with the bathwater of all things bad
internationally simply on the basis of its current initiative in Iraq
-- as many, worldwide, seem prepared to do. Judgment might be
suspended until such time as an effective context and accountability
structures can be created for that action.
The US did not so much seek as find itself
thrust into its present role, following World War II. Its role in
the world became even more dominant following the end of the Cold War.
Today, with the United Nations having failed to assert its own
responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and
thus being in crippled condition, and the invasion of Iraq under a
coalition headed by the US well begun, the American role
has inevitably taken on the full colour of imperialism.
The world today thus finds itself on the horns
of a dilemma. Resisting the hegemony of the United States seems
likely, if successful, to create an even more turbulent international
situation. Similarly, allowing a dubiously authorized US-led
"enforcement action" perhaps fueled by imperialist ambitions to
proceed without protest is dangerous. In such a situation a new
conceptual framework becomes needed, a new myth or story, a narrative
of world affairs in which broad common ground can be found and the
forces supportive of a human and humane future be fostered and those
inimical to it constrained.
The US, doubtful of a United Nations with
its growing membership of nations of various sizes and forms of
government and membership franchise of one nation one vote (a very
different matter from a one person one vote situation), and its
Security Council veto arrangements, appears to have concluded that the
UN is not constituted in such a way as to be able to ensure
international peace and security. (Nor is it alone: there is much to
be done before the world can be confident that the UN is in condition
to embrace its responsibility for maintaining international peace and
security.) However it is still possible to read the US as not wanting
imperial power so much as wanting a world in which security is
assured, a world in which the US and all nations are free to
develop their potential, a world in which "coalitions of the willing"
set about addressing some of the primary
global agenda items that now supercede mere international
affairs in their urgency. This reading could be wrong but may not
be: it seems highly unlikely that the Americans want a world in which
they must have troops stationed abroad on a continuing basis.
Thus, far from the US having "Dreams of Empire"
and the rest of the world having to pronounce "Eulogies for
International Law," ("Dreams of Empire, Eulogies for International
Law" by John Gershman, http://www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2003/0325empire.html), we could be on the verge of a welcome new
development. Whether such a development is realized will depend now on
the initiative of other nations than the US. Will the
anti-Americanism that has emerged over the war in Iraq develop and
fester, or will a more forward-looking effort be made toward a
peaceful world of the future in which power is widely distributed even
though force may continue to be concentrated in a few
hands?
At present, it is the US government's combined
roles of being a significant civil authority in the world (the
government of a leading nation state) and the leader of a
self-elected international police force that are making the US
President's role untenable on the global stage. An international
police force requires a client, an international civil authority. The
situation is of course inviting backlash, including potentially
threatening terrorism against the very peace that is sought.
The difficulty at the moment seems to reside in
an absence of options. The world is being asked to choose between a
United Nations that could have provided a legitimate international
policing force in the Iraq situation but didn't, and an American
imperium that has, in association with some other nations, taken the
matter into its own hands. At the present time the dialogue between
the two powers, the UN and the US, is in disrepair and neither, of its
own, offers an effective option to the world's people and their desire
for peace. The addition of a third institution of some credibility
seems to be needed to alter the current unhappy dynamics.
A proposal
With the foregoing in mind, and recalling that
planning for the United Nations preceded the end of World War II, it
is proposed that plans go forward immediately, without waiting for
further developments in Iraq or elsewhere, toward creating a "Commons
of the Democracies" with a view to fostering an international
architecture that might be called "Pax Democratica".
Such a proposal does not seek to displace the
United Nations. It seeks to secure an international environment
wherein the UN can strengthen its peacekeeping and humanitarian
functions and its member agencies; can assist its currently "failing"
member states to become successful states, and can deepen some of the
reforms of its procedures and component organs that were given impetus
by its recent 50th anniversary celebrations. Nor does the proposal
seek to displace the United States from its current position as the
leading nation in the world. It seeks to secure an international
environment wherein the US can strengthen its society and economy and
work with other democracies toward building the secure world that is
in everybody's interest, and the UN be developed and strengthened with
all member states on board until the Pax Democratica is enbraced
within a fully effective Pax Mundi -- a world of sustainable
peace.
Lest the notion of a Commons of the Democracies
seem far-fetched, the nations of North and South America have already
considered an agreement to which only those nations that maintain a
democratic form of government will be allowed membership. The European
Union and other alliances have similar criteria as does the
Commonwealth -- the unique
family of fifty-four developed and developing nations around the world
with a commitment to democracy and good government. It is but a
small step from these and other such arrangements to a convening all
the democracies in a Commons, an instrument that not only looks
forward to a peaceful world of the future but facilitates the UN and
the US in playing their appropriate roles in that world.
In the planning for the first convening of a
Commons of the Democracies, it is possible to envisage the setting up
of criteria for initial membership, accompanied also by an openness to
those nations which indicate their intention to become increasingly
democratic in their practices. To envisage the style as being
that of the Commonwealth, without formal charter or constitution and
with friendly and mutually respectful and supportive relationships
among members. To envisage member states having democracies (and
economies) of a variety of different types, according to the will
of their people. To envisage the initiator of the Commons of the
Democracies as being the United Kingdom, assisted perhaps by Russia
and others, in a small but broadly acceptable consort that includes
states from all continents and of diverse religious and cultural
background. To envisage Canada, a non-participant in the Iraq war, as
prepared to play host to the initial meeting, for geopolitical
reasons. To envisage the agenda of that meeting to consist not merely
of a sharing of opinion about the current global situation but a
search for creative options for the way ahead. To envisage it being
less important that conclusions be reached than that constructive
approaches be identified which might be followed up at the discretion
of participating nations acting alone or in various "coalitions of the
willing" or perhaps collectively outside the Commons. To envisage the
Commons itself as "presence" and "forum" more than an entity that
would itself engage activities other than discussion and research (
including global issues that now supercede mere international
affairs).To envisage an early second convening of the Commons
being planned to develop its potential.
The import of this proposal is to place
increased value on the principle of responsible self-government by
persons and nations in relation to the principle of national
sovereignty (the principle on which the United Nations is based). The
presence within the United Nations of states whose governing regimes
have not yet had to earn the confidence of their population erodes the
moral authority of the UN at a time when the world's people, in order
to ensure their human security, need states prepared to acknowledge
their "responsibility to protect."
An international body composed of states
accountable to and having the democratic responsibility to respect and
care about their people, and to further develop their institutions and
populations toward responsible self government, would provide a forum
for discussion and the making of agreements toward creation of an
international architecture, Pax Democratica. The effect would be to
obviate the necessary for a Pax Americana and to support the
United Nations in its responsibility to maintain international
peace and security. The creation of the Commons would not only help to
strengthen the role of democratic states within the UN, it would also
contribute to strengthening international law and thus the Security
Council's capacity to maintain international peace and security. And
it would provide an immediate context in which America might begin to
place its confidence that it is not alone and need not seek global
security through a mere Pax Americana. (The immediate US
acceptance of an invitation to a founding meeting could help set many
minds at ease at the present juncture in affairs.)
Conclusion
The proposal is to put in place, as rapidly as
possible, an international architecture of successful, responsible and
responsive states, a Commons of the Democracies for a Pax Democratica in which the
United States and all democracies, old, new, and seriously aspiring
would, it is hoped, join.
The real challenge that the world is facing is
surely not between the UN and the US, and certainly not the Crescent
and the Cross, but in developing governments that serve their people
and can increasingly be held accountable for doing so. No governments
are fully successful in this respect, and by having a third entity, a
Commons of the Democracies enter the present situation, as an entity
is clearly committed to friendship among its member states, continuing
openness to other states, to evolutionary and developmental processes,
and to only the legitimized use of force, the present dangerous
international situation could perhaps become an opportunity.
Like other proposals in a world of many states
with many different types of government, this proposal for a Commons
of the Democracies and a Pax Democratica has its virtues and its
difficulties. It seems nonetheless worth considering at the present
time, when adversarial binary options, none of them satisfactory, are
predominant in international affairs. The proposal may be helpful in
moving the world past this difficult moment. Providing a vision of our
common future that leaves increasingly less room for despotism and
terrorism, and a growing possibility for sustainable peace, it should
be given serious thought. At the very least we should become prepared
for a peaceful world emerging from the present state of affairs --
lest it not happen simply because we weren't ready for it?
Gail Ward
Stewart